I’m not too happy to spend time pointing out flaws in slop. This kind of bullshit asymmetry feels a bit too much like work. But, since you’re polite about it, and seem to ask in good faith…

First of all this is presented as a technical infographic on an “algorithm” for how a recommendation engine will work. As someone whose job it is to design similar things, it explains pretty much nothing of substance. It does, however, describes the trivial parts you can assume from the problem description, and the rest is weird and confusing.

So let’s see what this suggested algorithm is.

1. It starts out with “user requests the feed”, and depending on whether or not you have “preference” data (prior interests or choices, etc), you give either a selection based on something generic, or something that you can base recommendations on. Well… sure. So far, silly, and trivial.

2. “Scoring and ranking engine”. And below this, a pie diagram with four categories. Why are there lines between only the two top categories, and the engine box? Seems weird, but, OK. I suppose all four are equally connected, which would be clearer without the lines.

3. On the three horizontal “Source Streams” arrows coming in from the right, its all just weird. The source streams are going to be… generated content, no? But let’s give it the befit of the doubt and assume it’s suggesting that, given generated content, some of it might can be considered relevant for “personal preference” and has a “filter: hidden creators”, but, none of that makes any sense. The scoring and ranking engine is already suggested to do this part… The next one is “Popular (high scores) filter: bloom filter (already seen)”. Which mixes concepts. A bloom filter is the perfect thing to confuse an LLM, because it has nothing to do with filters in the exact same context it was used for the above source stream. Something intelligent wouldn’t make this mistake. But, it does statistically parrot it’s way to suggest that a bloom filter might have something to do with a cost effective predicate function that could make sense for a “has seen before”. However, why is this here?

I’ll just leave it at that. This infographic would make a lot of sense if it was created by some high schoolers who tried to understand some of things, found many relevant concepts, but didn’t fully understand any of them. And, it’s also exactly the kind of stuff I’d expect from an LLM.

I don’t think loops hired a bunch of kids, so LLM it is.